On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 02:00:48PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 01:20:50PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 06:39:14PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
> > @@ -565,6 +574,8 @@ static const struct option options[] = {
> > > {.name = "counters", .has_arg = false, .val = 'c'},
> > > {.name = "trace", .has_arg = false, .val = 't'},
> > > {.name = "event", .has_arg = false, .val = 'e'},
> > > + {.name = "arp", .has_arg = false, .val = '0'},
> > > + {.name = "bridge", .has_arg = false, .val = '1'},
> >
> > Probably?
> >
> > -A for arp.
> > -B for bridge.
> >
> > so users don't have to remember? -4 and -6 are intuitive, I'd like
> > these are sort of intuitive too in its compact definition.
> >
> > Apart from that, patchset looks good to me.
>
> I had something like that (-a and -b should still be free), but then
> discovered that for rules there was '-0' prefix in use when printing arp
> family rules. Should I change these prefixes also or leave them as -0
> and -1? I guess most importantly they must not clash with real
> parameters.
You can just leave them as is if this is the way this is exposed in
rules. Not sure what the logic behing -0 and -1 is, this is not
mapping to NFPROTO_* definitions, so it looks like something it's been
pulled out of someone's hat :-)
I think users will end up using --arp and --bridge for this. I myself
will not remember this -0 and -1 thing.
Feel free to explore any possibility, probably leaving the existing -0
and -1 in place if you're afraid of breaking anything, add aliases and
only document the more intuitive one. If you think this is worth
exploring, of course.
Thanks!
